|
Some are saying having a bridge carry the name Philip D. Beall Sr.(pictured above) is simply unacceptable. So who will be the area's monument police that will use today's standards to tear down monuments and rip down memorial designations from men that lived 50, 100, 150, 200, or 300 years ago? Will we demand all local memorials, roadway designations, statues and monuments to President Andrew Jackson also be abolished? |
Who will be our area's "monument police?"
As we work through the initiative that some citizens have been pushing to
take the Philip D Beall designation from the bridge that bears his name in Pensacola--some have even stooped to the lowest of levels and started to attack the man's character (and by implication, his family's good name) as an added reason to take the designation from him and his family.
They are asking the legislature to submit a bill to remove the Beall name from the bridge and add a different name.
This is very unfortunate.
Philip D. Beall Sr. was a State Senator that did many great things for our area. His son, Philip D. Beall, Jr., also served in the Florida Senate for 16 years after he returned from service in WW II. He also did many great things for our area as well. He had a brother that served in WWII in the Pacific Theater. This brother, Kirke Monroe Beall, went on to serve as a local Circuit Court Judge. He did many great things for our area as well.
From the 1930s through the 1960s and beyond--
this family gave a lot to our area.
But according to some that want to see a new name on the replacement bridge that currently honors the Beall family's Patriarch--
the name MUST change because in the opinion of this small minority of folks--"
Beall was a racist." To me this is disgusting and insulting and ignores historical realities that cannot be downplayed.
The impetus for this negative characterization being heaped upon Senator Beall apparently stems from legislation that was sponsored in the Florida Legislature in 1935 and adopted unanimously and signed into law by the Governor that sought to control and solidify Democratic control over areas of the state by disallowing Republican voters (primarily Black voters at this time in our history) from voting in primary elections.
This was wrong, no doubt. Under today's standards it would not be tolerated and anyone that tried such tactics would rightly be imprisoned. But a thorough examination of the context illustrates that this was a party-politics issue--not a blatantly, exclusively racist issue. But let me be clear: our historic treatment of minorities in the South was abhorrent. It was abysmal. I wasn't alive until 1968 and if I was alive then--I would not have supported it! This said--it was the way things were at that particular time. Our history is ugly.
But nope, we apparently cannot look at it that way. Nope, it was racism! and so now, suddenly, after all these years, the Beall's are no longer "worthy" of the memorial designation on the bridge. Nope, some self-anointed "monument police" have spoken. They have decreed that this is no longer tenable. The name must be changed NOW because this man was, according to these accusers, a bigot!
But wait just a minute. Who is it among all men that is without any fault? Who? Answer: none of us. Only God is without fault.
So who will be the area's monument police that will use today's standards to tear down monuments and rip down memorial designations from men that lived 50, 100, 150, or 200 years ago? Will we
demand all local memorials, roadway designations, statues and monuments to President Andrew Jackson be abolished? After all, even though he was a beloved figure in history, a former governor of the Florida territory and our nation's 7th President---
he and his son owned hundreds of slaves in his lifetime at his properties in Tennessee and Mississippi-- and he ordered the forcible removal of the Cherokee Indians from the southeast to Oklahoma--
and thousands of Native Americans died as a result. What will the monument police say about "Old Hickory?" Will these monument police immediately forego the use of the U.S. $20 Dollar Bill that features Andrew Jackson?
|
Andrew Jackson owned slaves and mistreated Native Americans in his lifetime. Will the same self-anointed "monument police" that are demanding Senator Beall's memorial be taken away demand all of the local memorials to President Jackson come down as well? |
Or---
Will he be exempted from the demands for monument and memorial removals by the same monument police that want Philip D. Beall's name removed from the Bridge that carries his name?
If so, why? And if not, why not?
I want to understand the distinctions. Is it based upon position of power achieved? Notoriety? Or is it based upon the severity of the injustices purportedly committed upon minorities? I want to know and I only ask because if we are giving Jackson a pass, but not Beall, this is illogical and hypocritical. Jackson did far, far, worse to Indians and Blacks than did most anyone--he did way worse by orders of magnitude than did Florida State Senate President Philip D. Beall Sr.
Will the monument police have different standards based upon different historical periods, and-if so- who among the monument police will set such standards? I'm very interested in this.
Next let's talk about Don Tristan De Luna, Sen. Robert Byrd, Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. I want to hear what the monument police have to say about all the monuments, hundreds of them around the nation, to all of these historic men who each had their own unique historical issues with race and unequal treatment of races--and/or worse.
I would like a cogent, reasoned response from the monument police on this question: --do we have to tear down all remnants of any memorial or monument to any prominent historical figures if there is any speck of racial issues with such a figure's history--regardless of the implications of the particular period in history in which such historic figures lived? Is that what the monument police want?
This is an incredibly steep and slippery slope and it is a very dangerous thing to do, tearing down monuments, statues, memorials, and family legacies.
For my part, I won't partake.
I know all too well that we are all flawed, none of us is perfect, history is exactly what it was (not what we want to redefine it to be) and if we start down this path it does not end well.